Quantum Transport in Disorderd Mesoscopic Ferromagnetic Films
Philip A.E. Jonkersld, Steven J. Pickering and Hans De Raedil3
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 9H1 AG Groningen, The Netherlands
Gen TataraH
Max Planck Institut fur Mikrostrukturphysik Weinberg 2, 06120 Halle, Germany
and
Graduate School of Science, Osaka University, Toyonaka, Osaka 5600043, Japan
The effect of impurity and domainwall scattering on the electrical conductivity of disordered
mesoscopic magnetic thin films is studied by use of computer simulation. The results indicate a
reduction of resistivity due to a domain wall, which is consistent with the explanation in terms of
the dephasing caused by domain wall.
PACS number: 73.50.h
The electrical transport properties of ferromagnetic metals have attracted much interest recently see e.g. W [pi.
In the present work we study the quantum transport in mesoscopic wires that contain a magnetic domain wall. The
motion of the electrons passing through a wire that contain a magnetic domain wall is affected by various physical
processes. As the electron approaches the domain wall it experiences a change in potential energy, leading to a
reflection and hence to a reduction of the conductivity. However, unless the domain wall is unrealistically narrow
(compared to the Fermi wavelength of the electrons) this reduction has been shown to be negligibly small W in the case
of a spinindependent collision time. In the presence of a domain wall the spin of the electron will change as the electron
passes through the wire. This rotation will lead to a mixing of spinup and spindown components. Assuming that
the (Boltzmann) collision time is spindependent, this mixing then results in an increase of the resistivity, a scenario
that has been proposed [pj to explain the experimental results on thin Co films at room temperature [0. Spin
dependent scattering is the essential ingredient in models for electron transport in magnetic materials that exhibit
giant magnetoresistance (GMR) ^ p^ .
In disordered systems at low temperatures the quantum interference, which becomes important as a result of random
spinzrzdependent impurity scattering, also influences strongly the electron transport properties. Theoretical work M]
has shown that the domain wall suppresses the interference (and thus weak localization) due to impurity scattering,
resulting in a decrease of the resistivity. Very recently there have been several experimental studies of a resistivity in
a mesoscopic wire of ferromagnetic metals M [pj. The results suggest a reduction of resistivity due to a domain wall,
and interestingly the effect increases by lowering the temperature; below 50 K [Q, and 20 K [g respectively. This
reduction might be related to the quantum decoherence caused by the wall. But other classical mechanisms of the
reduction have also been proposed as well Q and further studies are needed to clarify its origin. The purpose of the
present paper is to study the interplay of the domain wall and spinindependent impurity scattering in more detail
and to compare quantitatively the theoretical prediction of the Kuboformula approach with firstprinciple quantum
mechanical calculations.
The geometry of the model system is shown in Fig.lJ. The electrons are assumed to move in a twodimensional
metallic strip with a single magnetic domain wall. The Hamiltonian for this model reads
l(peA/c)'/isTM + y, (1)
•71* \ /
2
2m
where p = {j)x,Py) is the momentum operator of the electron with effective mass m* , a = (cr^, a"^ ,a^) denote the Pauli
spin matrices. M = M(a;, y) describes the magnetization in the material and V = V{x, y) represents the potential due
to nonmagnetic impurities. We neglect the vector potential A resulting from the sum of the atomic magneticdipole
contributions because in the case of a thin wire, it has little effect on the electron transport.
Following R], [O we assume that the magnetic domain wall can be described by
A4(a;,y) = Mosech(^^) (2)
V Aw '
and
M,(x,2;)=Afotanhf^^y (3)
with Xq the center of the domain wall and A^, measures its extent. Note that M'^{x,y) + M^{x,y) = Mq so that at
each point {x, y) the magnetization is a constant. For a schematic picture of how the magnetization changes with x
see Fig.l.
As a model for each impurity we take a square potential barrier, i.e.
where Sn denote the area of square with label n. The position of the square is drawn from a uniform random
distribution, rescaled to an area of size Lx x Ly (see Fig.nh. The concentration of impurities, c is given hy c —
X]n=i Sn/{LxLy) where N denotes the total number of impurities. The potential entering in Eq. (yj) is given by
V^V{x,y)^Y!l=iVn{x,y).
We will follow two routes to study the effect of the domain wall on the electrical conductivity: 1) By solving
the timedependent Schrodinger equation (TDSE) and 2) through an extension of the Kuboformulabased theory of
Tatara and Fukuyama [l3 . The results of these two fundamentally different approaches can be compared by making
use of the Landauer formula l4, 13] relating the conductivity a to the tranmission coefficient T.
In the TDSE approach the procedure to calculate the transmission coefficient T consists of three steps. First the
incoming electrons are represented by a wave packet with average momentum (p) = hk = (hkp, 0). For concreteness
we take this intitial state to represent electrons with spin up only, i.e.
*(a:,y,t = 0)(V'T(a;,y,i = 0),Vi(x,y,i0)) = (V'T(a;,y,t = 0),0), (5)
and / dxdy\'i/{x, y, < = 0)p = 1. The second step involves the solution of the TDSE
d^{x,y,t)
ih — = rc^{x, y, t) (6)
for sufficiently long times. The method we use to solve the TDSE has been described at length elsewhere [Q, [[l7[ ,
so we omit details here. As indicated in Fig.nl we place imaginary detection screens at various x— positions. The
purpose of each screen is to record the accumulated current that passes through it (the wave function is not modified
by this detection process). Dividing the transmitted current (detector 2, see Fig.nf) by the incident current (detector
1) yields the transmission coefficient T. As the simulation package l^], l^ that we use solves the TDSE subjected
to Dirichlet boundary conditions, some precautions have to be taken in order to suppress artifacts due to reflections
from the boundaries aX x = Q,x = L. We have chosen to add to V, an imaginary linear potential that is nonzero
near the edges of the sample, as indicated by the gray strips in Fig.^ and found that the absorption of intensity that
results is adequate for the present purpose.
For numerical work it is convenient to rewrite the TDSE (pi) in a dimensionless form. Taking the Fermi wavelength
\f as the characteristic length scale of the electrons, the energy is measured in units of the Fermienergy Ep =
h'^ / [2mX'^p) and time in units of fi/Ep. For our model simulations we have taken L = 100 Xp, Ly = 6.5 Xp,
fx^Mo = 0.4 Ep Vo = 100 Ep and 5„ = 0.25 A.
In Figs.y and gwe show some snapshots of the probability distribution for the spinup (top) and spindown (bottom)
part of the electron wave, moving through an impurityfree region. Initially at t = 0, the probability for having
electrons with spindown is zero. As the wave moves to the right, the M^ component of the magnetization causes the
spin to rotate, resulting in a conversion of electrons with spinup into electrons with spindown. For realistic values
of the strength {i.e. hbMq < Ep) and width of the domain wall {i.e. X^ > Xp) the conversion will be almost 100
% (for all practical purposes), which leads to a negligibly small reflection ^. We have chosen A^, = 2 A_f, . . . , 16 A_f,
which may be reasonable in the case of a very narrow wire or a strong anisotropy.
In the presence of impurities two new effects appear:
1. As a result of the scattering by the potential barriers electrons will be reflected, leading to a reduction of
the transmission coefficient in the sense of Boltzmann transport. At the same time interference among scat
tered electrons leads to weak localization, and this quantum mechanical effect also suppresses the transmission.
Obviously these effects are present in the absence of a domain wall as well.
2. As a result of the presence of the domain wall, electrons that are backscattered and have their spin reversed due
to the wall, no longer interfere with electrons whose spin is unchanged. Hence the effect of the domain wall is to
reduce the enhanced backscattering due to the interference. On the basis of this argument it is to be expected
that in the presence of a domain wall the transmission coefficient can be larger than in the absence of it.
In our simulations the contribution due to quantum interference effects resulting from the presence of the domain
wall can be separated from all other contributions by a simple procedure: We compute the ratio of the transmission
with (T) and without (Tq) a domain wall.
Some representative results of our calculations are depicted in Figsjjy. The simulation data shown are obtained
from a single realization of the impurity distribution. No ensemble averagingof the transmission coefficient has been
performed. The transmission in the absence of the wall (To) is plotted in Fig. 4 as a function of impurity concentration
in the case of Lx = 16. In Figs, ra and o we show the ratio T/Tq as a function of the impurity concentration c, for
Lx = 8 and Lx = 16 respectively. The two sets of simulation data in Fig. 5 correspond to different impurity
configurations, and the difference between the two is due to a different interference pattern. The enhancement alluded
to above is clearly present. The effect of conversion of the electron spin by the wall is amplified considerably by the
quantum interference at larger impurity concentration. The larger the scattering the more effective the domain wall
is in converting electrons with spinup into electrons with spindown.
In Figs.R and we present results for domain walls of different width X^, keeping fixed the area in which the
impurities are present {Lx = 4, and Lx — 8 respectively). The net result of increasing A^ in this case is to reduce the
effectiveness of the MxC^ term in the Hamiltonian. Indeed by increasing Am, Mx{x,y) becomes more smooth, hence
less effective in the sense that less electrons flip their spin.
Let us compare these results with the analytical result based on Kubo formula, which is obtained by extending
the theory of Tatara and Fukuyama p3[ . In the absence of domain wall the conductivity in two dimensions with the
effect of weak localization taken into account is given by
cro
e TIT
< X 7 / 1 Xp 1 Lx
—nXpl I 1 —
(7)
where n is the electron density, r and / = {TikpT /m) being the elastic lifetime and the mean free path, respectively.
We have carried out the gsummation in one dimension, since Ly is much smaller than the inelastic diffusion length
in the absence of the wall, which should be regarded as infinity in the simulation here. The transmission coefficient
To is related to the conductivity by ctq — {e^ /h){Lx/Ly)\To/{\ — Tq)] and thus
Tn
/3
(i + vc
1
vc
j3 + vcTT^ a Ly
(8)
where /3 = nX%,a,
(Lx/Ly) and the mean free path is related to c through / = aXp/c. We treat a and /3 as
fitting parameters. The solid curve in Fig. is obtained for a = 0.05 and /3 = 6 (or equivalently I ~ 0.5Af — 3fc^
for c = O.l %, which appears to be reasonable). The dotted line is the classical contribution to Tq {i.e. the first term
in (8)) and it is larger than Tq at large c.
In the presence of a domain wall the conductivity is expressed as
ilXi
1
1
A
27r2 X,„L
TT
2 Xp
tan
Lx
ttL,,
(9)
where the second term is the classical contribution from the wall reflection and the third term is a weak localization
correction with the effect of the wall included. The effect of the wall is to cause dephasing among the electron as
is represented by the inelastic diffusion length, L^ = ^/Dt^. Here r^ is the inelastic lifetime due to the spinflip
scattering by the wall, t~^ = {XpEpY /(2Ati'^XwLx1^^t) (A = ^bA/q denoting the Zeeman splitting) iQ. The
expression of T/Tq is obtained as
1
vc a
4^11
ttL,,
■ tan
Lx
TtLo)
1
X2
In XwLx
(10)
The result is plotted as solid lines in Figs. ^[^. The classical contribution (the last term) is negligibly small compared
with the quantum correction in the region we are interested, and thus the enhancement of the transmission by the
wall is seen. We have used the same value of parameter /3 = 6, but with different a (a = 0.05 for Fig. 5but a = 0.02
for Figs. Wa). We think this dependence of a on Lx is due to the ambiguity in relating the mean free path in Kubo
formula to c in the simulation. Results of eq. (nOl) thus obtained explain the simulation data well.
Acknovirledgements
This work was partially supported by the "Stichting Nationale Computer Faciliteiten (NCF)" , the NWO Priority
Program on Massive Parallel Processing and a Grantin Aid for Scientific Research of the Japanese Ministry of
Education, Science and Culture.
Email: jonkers@phys.rug.nl.
Email: deraedt@phys.rug.nl.
Email: tatara@ess.sci.osakau.ac.jp.
[1] T.N. Todorov and G.A.D. Briggs, J.Phys.: Condens. Matter 6, 2559 (1994).
[2] M. Viret, D. Vignoles, D. Cole, J.M.D. Coey, W. Allen, D.S. Daniel, and J.F. Gregg , Phys. Rev. B 53, 13, 8464 (1996).
2224 (1997).
[3] J.F. Gregg, W. Allen, K. Ounadjela, M. Viret, M. Hehn, S.M. Thompson, and J.M.D. Coey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77,8, 1580
(1996).
[4] U.Ruediger,J.Yu,S.Zhang,A.D.Kent and S.S.P.Parkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 5639 (1998).
[5] K.Hong and N. Giordano, J.Phys.: Condens. Matter 10, L401 (1998).
[6] Otani et ai, in preparation.
[7] G.G. Cabrera and L.M. Falicov, phys. stat. sol. (b) 61, 539 (1974).
[8] P. M. Levy and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 25, 5110 (1997).
[9] M.N. Baibich, J.M Broto, A. Pert, F.Nguyen Van Dau, F. Petroff, P. Eitenne, G. Creuzet, A. Friederich, and J. Chazelas,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 61,21, 2472 (1988).
[10] G. Binach, P. Grunberg, F. Saurenbach, and W. Zinn, Phys. Rev. B 39, 4828 (1989).
[11] J.J. Krebs, P. Lubitz, A. Chaiken, and G.A. Prinz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1645 (1989).
[12] S.S.P. Parkin, N. More, and K.P Roche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2304 (1990).
[13] G. Tatara and H. Fukuyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78,19, 3773 (1997).
[14] R. Landauer, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 1 (1989) 80998110.
[15] S. Datta Electronic TYansport in Mesoscopic Systems, Cambridge University Press 1995.
[16] H. De Raedt and K. Michielsen, Computer in Physics 8, 600 (1994).
[17] H. De Raedt, Annual Reviews of Computational Physics IV, ed. D. Stauffer, World Scientific 107 (1996).
FIG. 1. The geometry of the simulation model of a mesoscopic metallic wire containing a magnetic domain wall of width Xw
Black squares: Impurities distributed randomly over an area of size L^ x Ly. The gray stripes at the edges indicate regions
where electrons entering these regions are being absorbed. The detector screens 1 and 2 measure the electrical current through
these screens. Also shown is a schematic diagram of the magnetization inside the strip.
FIG. 2. Snapshots of the time evolution of the electron wave packet moving through an impurity free mesoscopic wire
containing a domain wall with A^ = 2Af (represented by the smooth gray area), taken at fi = 75 h/Ep, f2 ~ 100 fi/Ep and
ti = 150 h/Ep.
FIG. 3. Snapshots of the time evolution of the electron wave packet moving through a mesoscopic wire with impurities
(represented by small black dots) with an impurity concentration c = 2% containing a domain wall (A^ = 2Af), taken at
ti = 75 h/Ep, t2 = 100 n/Ep and is = 150 h/Ep.
FIG. 4. Transmission in the absence of domain wall. To, as a function of impurity concentration c for the case of L^; = 8 Af.
Solid and dotted line denotes the result of Kubo formula with and without the weak localization correction taken into account,
respectively. The efi^ect of weak localization lowers the transmission at large c. Parameters are a = 0.05 and /3 = 6 (see (B)).
FIG. 5. Relative enhancement T/Tq of the transmission resulting from the presence of the domain wall as a function of
impurity concentration c. The width of the domain wall is Aii, = 2 \f and Lx ~ 16 \f (see Fig.[l). Simulation data for different
impurity configurations are represented by diamonds and circles (the dashed and dotted line are guides to the eye only). Also
shown is the theoretical result (FlOf) with a — 0.05 and /3 = 6. (solid line).
FIG. 6. Relative enhancement T /To of the transmission resulting from the presence of the domain wall as a function of
impurity concentration c. The width of the domain wall A^. = 2 Af and Lx ~ ^ \f (see FigJlf). Circles: simulation data; solid
line: theoretical resuh (l^ (a = 0.02, /3 = 6).
FIG. 7. Relative enhancement T/Tq of the transmission as a function of the width A^ of the domain wall for various impurity
concentrations c and L^, = 4 Af. The circles, squares and diamonds correspond to c = 3.85 %, c = 7.69 % and c = 15.38 %
respectively. The solid line depicts the theoretical result for c = 15.38 % (a = 0.02, /3 = 6).
FIG. 8. Relative enhancement T/Tq of the transmission as a function of the width A^ of the domain wall for various impurity
concentrations c and L^, = 8 Af. The circles, squares and diamonds correspond to c = 3.85 %, c — 5.77 % and c — 7.69 %
respectively. The solid line depicts the theoretical result for c — 7.69 % (a = 0.02, /3 = 6).
'X
I
W I
wave packet
impurity
absorption detection /««,;« ,.,//
terminal screen 1 OOmain wall
LZ
i i L i L i L i
magnetization
T
h
L
detection absorption
screen 2 terminal
t t t t t t M
t =
t =
t = t1
Probability distribution of eiectrons witii spin up
t = t1
Probability distribution of eiectrons witii spin down
y
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin up
t = t2
t = t2
t = t3
t = t3
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin down
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin up
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin down
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin up
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin down
Fig.2
t =
t =
t = t1
t = t1
t = t2
Probability distribution of eiectrons witii spin up
Probability distribution of eiectrons witii spin down
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin up
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin down
■^y^:.m
i'
E;t
t = t2
t = t3
t = t3
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin up
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin down
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin up
Probability distribution of electrons witii spin down
Fig.3
1
0.8
E^
0.6 ^ •>
0.4
0.2
^
k
"
f
"

N^
"^^^
^

*^^*.!^_ 1 " """^ ^^
^*^
8 12
C(%)
16
Fig. 4
^
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
/
/

/
/
/

♦
/ /
/
/
7
/

■~ ♦
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
 • —
/
_  ^
/
8
12
C{%)
16
Fig. 5
fe
1.2
o 1.15
1.1
1.05
1 U*=^
8 12
C(%)
16
Fig. 6
^
1.25
1.2
1.15
1.1
1.05
1
^
1
1
\
\
\
\

i
\
\

>
y\
^
' — .

[— , — , ^
8 12
16
w
Fig. 7
fe
1.1
1.08
1.06
1.04
1.02
1
4 8 12 16
w
Fig. 8